So wait, universities can patent things, but then have sovereign immunity from infringing copyright?
I know the other parts of government are prohibited from being able to get copyright or patents, so that means sovereign immunity makes sense in a heavy-handed way, but allowing both ownership and immunity seems... like having your cake and eating it too.
The problem isn't the judge; it's that the defendant didn't claim copyright infringement, but a "taking" of property. I'd rather like to know who is the lawyer.
If you read the link posted elsewhere in the thread by Mathnerd314, it is apparent that the question of whether the states can be sued for copyright infringement is a live one, on which the Supreme Court has just granted certiorari.
Thanks; I was led astray by another case (Cambridge University Press v. Patton) in which a State University was found guilty, but it seems they simply failed to raise the immunity argument and therefore the court didn't apply it.
I know the other parts of government are prohibited from being able to get copyright or patents, so that means sovereign immunity makes sense in a heavy-handed way, but allowing both ownership and immunity seems... like having your cake and eating it too.
Who's the judge I wonder...